Hillary Clinton’s Soft Populism Is Not Enough

[mother earth]

http://www.thenation.com/blog/204041/hillary-clintons-soft-populism-not-enough

Full article at link above, just an excerpt:

The Democratic nominee in 2016 has to propose a specific populism that recognizes the failure of free-trade deals such as NAFTA and join Elizabeth Warren in rejecting proposals to “Fast Track” a Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement that critics warns will be “NAFTA on steroids.” The Democratic nominee has to recognize that the Dodd-Frank reforms were insufficient and that Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown is right when he proposes to break up “too-big-to-fail” banks. The Democratic nominee must recognize the need to raise new revenues, as Congressman Keith Ellison has with his proposal for a “Robin Hood Tax” on financial speculation. The Democratic nominee must, as Congresswoman Barbara Lee does, recognize the need to steer money away from bloated Pentagon budgets and toward meeting human needs. The Democratic nominee must, as Bernie Sanders does, recognize the absolute necessity of massive federal investments in infrastructure and programs that create and sustain living-wage jobs.

How about it, HRC? We want progressive values & action, let's start on TPP this week. The American people need a champion.

[hifiguy]

1. Well, that champion ain't gonna be HRC.

Every word she speaks in public is, I have no doubt, pre-approved by Goldman, Citibank and the MIC. Associations speak far more loudly than words.

[bvar22]

5. Like these associations?

[mother earth]

12. Tx for this, bvar22. It is important to know.

[RiverNoord]

14. Oh, come on...

Those financial and media companies are chock full of deeply patriotic Americans who just can't throw enough of their wealth in support of our cherished democratic institutions!

Well, maybe not Credit Suisse - but I'm sure that's just the Swiss yearning for the freedoms they so obviously don't have at home.

Even that deeply altruistic Australian Rupert Murdoch managed to send a bunch of money her way. This is democracy at its finest.

[hifiguy]

16. Eeyup! nt

[MrMickeysMom]

23. I should cross-check this with the amount of corporate taxes paid...

[YoungDemCA]

35. Guilt by association nt

[polichick]

2. HRC is a real populist now; she'll fight the TPP. Woohoo!!

[Doctor_J]

3. Well, if she's going to champion all of the people, that includes the banksters, insurance CEO's,

Koch brothers, and Bill Gates. So don't jump to conclusions

[zeemike]

8. There is always the caveat.

All the people who count.

[bvar22]

4. Nailed It.

Can't disagree with a single issue raised in the OP.

[pipoman]

6. I view the country, beyond party lines, as a pressure cooker

(Maybe being a professional cook makes this relevant to me). Wonderful things can be done to foods in a pressure cooker...it can turn a tough dry piece of meat tender and juicy..it can breakdown pulpy, inedible fruit into wonderful jams and jellies...it can make a boney fish reasonable to eat...the battles between the parties has always led to reasonable measure in the long term for society. This whole abandonment of US jobs and US labor along with the keeping down of standard of living in other participating nations..is raising the preasure. A pressure cooker can, if not properly attended, blow up taking out your kitchen and maybe your head...if someone snatches it off the heat and opens the escape valve, it will pressure down. The masses aren't at the point of blowing up, someone better pull it off the heat soon..whichever party takes up the cause of failure of trade policy will gain traction, the cause of police actions from asset forfeiture, no knock, stop and search, monitoring of telephone and other communication, etc will gain traction, the cause of international policy like the war on drugs, and championing the cause of international business will gain.

I just don't believe Hillary Clinton can convince anyone that she champions any of these things. Assuming she gets the nomination as long as the Republican doesn't have more of the populist agenda than she, she could win..throw a third party with a strong populist bent and all bets are off...

[Maedhros]

7. That's the real issue, isn't it?

Actual, helpful, Liberal policies vs. cheap talk.

[JDPriestly]

9. Great article.

[KamaAina]

10. Isn't "soft populism" kind of an oxymoron?

[MisterP]

11. will it delay resistance and take the wind out of the competition's sails,

and make her appealing enough to get in, then to be discarded at any big donor's request?

we've been told repeatedly that a candidate's record and ideology are not our concern, only their rhetoric

question is--will we prove them right?

[mother earth]

17. It's pretty scarey knowing that some elections get by without even addressing issues, I think a

certain tipping point has been reached.

There are signs everywhere that all is not well, and we get it because we live it.

[bvar22]

32. Debates used to be sponsored by the League of Women Voters.

They actually asked pertinent policy questions.

In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release:

" The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

According to the LWV, they pulled out because "the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated 'behind closed doors' ... [with] 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation. Most objectionable to the League...were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings.... [including] control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues."

"The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

[Cryptoad]

13. HRC is not now or ever has been a Progressive,,,,

might as well get your Stand with Rand sign ready..

the Nation???? really

[mother earth]

18. Really? Maybe a Stand with Sanders sign would be better, but perhaps HRC will take

Warren's lead and answer her call to take a stance against TPP? You think Rand is against TPP? Hell, he's helping legislate it.

[Cryptoad]

20. Next to HRC,,,

Paul is the next most Progressive candidate in the Race...... you pick em,

[mother earth]

21. so far, you think there will be NO one vying for the democratic nomination? Rand Paul is

no progressive. If you think he is, it is quite telling.

[maindawg]

15. She could have made a grand entrance.

It would have looked like the Dem convention with red velvet and a huge stage. She could have made such a spectacular show of it but she did not.
She has kind of disappeared. I hear that she is driving across the country to Iowa, in a red van. With god knows who, possibly , Kramer.
When she finally surfaces, she will have to be ready to answer some questions.

It will be interesting to listen to her talk about these issues as a candidate. She is the successor to the same political machine that our current president serves.

We know who that is ? I mean , do we ?

when you look at Hillary, you are looking in the mirror, kind of.

She may be traveling with Beavis and butthead or Kramer with the keys, or cheech and chong , she may be with some girl scout troop at a stop over at a jamborie, she may be taking the scenic route passing through weed topia to signal her approval of a life she left behind. She has gone underground and could have hopped a train in hoboing across Oklahoma as we speak, hell she might be having hamburgers in some greasy spoon with Elvis or the illegitimate sun uv Elvis. [Thats a good name for a band there]


We dont know where Hillary is at right now. With Boyce and Hart in some cabin trying to get Mike Nesbit to take his guitar playing seriously? You decide.

[mother earth]

24. I'm looking forward to hearing those answers. I'd love nothing more than to see a true people's

champion, but you can't be Wall St's or TPP's hero and the people's at the same time. You have to choose.

I'm grateful for the fine examples we do have in our party.

[maindawg]

30. Clarity

As we would ask the right to choose between Jesus and Ann Rand , we must also......

?list=RDljRJakYlRe4

[YOHABLO]

19. If we had anything close to a Democracy, candidates wouldn't have to grovel for contributions.

Suppose we set campaign contribution limits from corporate donors at a rate of about 20 million? We make it law that those channels that broadcast on the public airwaves (which we supposedly own .. the public that is) must allow x amount of time for advertisement etc. When candidates aren't obligated to serve the needs of corporations, then we will restore this country to a democratic society rather than the oligarchy that it's become. The nasty realization that we have a government saturated with lobbyist hounding Congress, obviously for favors that relate to their bottom line, PROFIT, is really what is at the root of this cancer in Washington. Talk about a colonic cleanse.

[mother earth]

22. I seriously agree! There needs to be campaign finance reform, it is absolutely ridiculous to

pretend our candidates care one bit about income inequality and poverty while they are set to spend billions.

[TantaLois]

25. check her voting record

Hillary was in the 11% most Liberal of Senators in her voting record. That was not easy. Lets push her in the right direction - with support. The alternative is dark.

[mother earth]

27. You have this a bit backwards, our support is dictated by her direction and stances, the alternative

IS very dark.

You know what's darker? We are dying by oligarchy hand. Big money is dictating the new normal and lack of rule of law, now they want power beyond nations, and they want it fast tracked.

How do you return to a gov't that represents its people, when big money buys it all?

[cali]

33. voting records do not accurately reflect who a politican is.

they are easily manipulated and easily interpreted to mean what you want them to mean.

Hillary is not liberal on economic issues. She's not particularly liberal on education issues (big time supporter of Charter Schools). She's a hawk.

[seveneyes]

26. This is the trip, the best part

Successful hills are here to stay
Everything must be this way
Gentle streets where people play
Welcome to the Soft Parade

[djean111]

28. It is faked campaign blather populism. n/t

[Thespian2]

29. K & R, hugely

[woo me with science]

31. Lying populism.

It is what all Third Way Democrats do.

They lie through campaigns pretending to stand for traditional Democratic policies in order to get elected, but then they pursue a corporate agenda. Her record is crystal clear. On all of the most important policies, she represents the very same defense, legalization, and expansion of the most malignant policies of the Bush era--secret laws, secret courts, mass surveillance, and looting corporatism--that we have come to expect from Third Way corporatists in Democrat costumes.

We have united oligarchy now, not divided democracy.

Hillary's agenda is predatory toward Americans and democracy itself.

[mother earth]

34. United oligarchy, yes, that is exactly what it is we are up against.

:hi